Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

KOPP: People should have voice in selection of senators

By Sen. Mike Kopp, Special to the Rocky

Published February 1, 2009 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Speakout

More stories »

Colorado's governor cannot even appoint someone to the state parks board without the approval of the full state Senate. Yet, our governor has the power to replace one of our state's U.S. senators - who serve in the most powerful lawmaking body on Earth - without consulting anyone at all.

Some say that's pretty much how Gov. Bill Ritter went about replacing Ken Salazar when he gave up his U.S. Senate seat to take his new job as Interior secretary in the Obama administration. Ritter's surprise pick of Denver schools chief and fellow Democrat Michael Bennet - who had never held elective office - mystified a lot of his party's leaders and even upset a few. Although Bennet is respected and has engendered goodwill in the Denver area, he remains largely unknown in much of the rest of Colorado.

More to the point, Coloradans for the most part hadn't a clue as to Bennet's views on a host of fundamental, bread- and-butter issues that are now his daily fare on the Senate floor. National security and foreign policy? How about the unprecedented federal bailout package that is moving through Congress? With no voting record or even a campaign platform, Bennet was by and large a mystery to most of the Coloradans he now will represent until the next general election.

None of which is to prejudge the newest member of our state's Washington delegation; what clearly is suspect, however, is the means by which he was selected. Colorado deserves better.

I have introduced a bill in the General Assembly to make the process for filling midterm vacancies in the U.S. Senate as accountable as the system we long have had for replacing Colorado's members of the U.S. House if they step down early. Senate Bill 152 would require the governor to call a special election no more than 49 days after a vacancy is announced unless it's within 90 days of a general election. In that case, the seat would remain open until the regular election.

In its recent editorial on my proposal, "Let governor decide" (Jan. 27), the Rocky Mountain News largely supported my reasoning but said my bill isn't necessary because the issue of senatorial succession doesn't come up very often. But why wait for it to happen again? To the Rocky's point about the added cost of holding a special election, keep in mind we are talking about the process for selecting one of our nation's most powerful elected officials.

Senators approve or reject a president's Cabinet nominees. They also ratify treaties. And they try a president in an impeachment, as they did President Bill Clinton just 10 years ago. That is awesome power. Precisely because senators rarely leave office in midterm, as the Rocky points out, isn't it all the more worth the extra expense of getting it right - by giving voters a voice - when naming a replacement?

Colorado voters deserve a greater voice in this pivotal process. Let's ensure they are heard.

Kopp, a Littleton Republican, represents District 22 in the Colorado Senate.

Comments

  • February 1, 2009

    6:21 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Mike_In_Hartsel writes:

    Very sensible. That means it won't pass.

  • February 1, 2009

    9:28 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    greenleaf writes:

    This does, as Mike says, make sense. It would, however, leave the state unrepresented during the months of a special election process. It would also cost the taxpayers a great deal of money. Perhaps a compromise situation would be in order. If a senate term has 3 years or less left, the governor appoints the replacement senator. If the term has more than 3 years remaining, a special election would be required. Just an idea.

    Regardless, if a change is to be made, now would be the time to make it when both Senate seats are filled and stable.

  • February 1, 2009

    10:28 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jgd writes:

    If a change is made for appointees, I also believe if a Democrat leave the replacement should also be a Democrat, same goes for a Republican.

    This is a tactic currently being used by Obama, nominating a Republican for his cabinet full knowing the Democrat governor will appoint a Democrat to fill that seat, thus getting his super majority in the Senate. It is like one big poison pill, if Gregg doesn't take the position the Democrat can say the Republicans don't want to join in a bipartisan government, if he does Obama gets his super majority.

  • February 1, 2009

    7:31 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    p_myers661 writes:

    Hey Sideshow

    He's talking about allowing the people of Colorado to choose the replacement. You have a problem with the people voting on something?

    Had we held a special election, the result would have been a Democratic victory. I like the idea of a novice running for office just about the time the bloom comes off of the Obama rose. (He needs to learn to be a leader not a dictator very fast.) The Republicans in the house finally got the message of the voters. No more RINOs. Now, if McCain decides to be a fool, the pork filled nonsense will pass with only his vote helping pass it. McCain is irrelevant and will prove it. If we had had a vote, the new Senator would have the experience of a campaign, an election and a following and would still be a Democrat. What's to complain about?

    We need to let the people decide next time. You'd get a vote too.